2010 (6) TMI 29 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit- Output services-, Te Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed a demand of service tax together with interest on the ground that the assessees were using common inputs for providing both taxable output services as well as exempted output services and therefore the credit utilization was restricted to 20% or 35% as per Rule 6(3)(c) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Penalties have been imposed under the provisions of Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. Held that- set aside the impugned order on the ground that the demand is barred by limitation and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, due to the assessees in accordance with law.

Issues:
1. Demand of service tax on the ground of using common inputs for taxable and exempted services.
2. Application of extended period of limitation.
3. Allegations of suppression of facts and non-disclosure of exempted output services.
4. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with a demand of service tax imposed on the appellants for using common inputs for both taxable and exempted output services. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand, citing restricted credit utilization under Rule 6(3)(c) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Penalties were also imposed under relevant provisions. However, the appellants disputed using common inputs for exempted services, asserting that the demand was barred by limitation. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, noting that the show-cause notice did not allege non-disclosure of providing exempted services. Consequently, the demand for the period in question was deemed time-barred, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal with appropriate relief as per the law.

2. Regarding the application of the extended period of limitation, the Tribunal observed that the assessees were accused of suppressing the fact of providing an exempted output service. However, the Tribunal found that the assessees consistently contested using common inputs for exempted services, negating the allegation of suppression. As the show-cause notice did not specifically mention non-disclosure of exempted services, the Tribunal concluded that the demand raised beyond the normal limitation period was unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand, emphasizing that the entire period covered in the notice was time-barred.

3. The judgment also addresses the imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Despite the initial confirmation of the demand and penalties by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal's decision to set aside the demand on grounds of limitation also impacted the penalties imposed. As the demand itself was deemed time-barred, the penalties associated with the demand were consequently set aside. This decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the allegations of suppression or non-disclosure of exempted output services by the assessees.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the issues of demand for service tax, application of extended limitation period, allegations of suppression and non-disclosure, and the imposition of penalties under relevant provisions. By ruling in favor of the assessees due to the demand being time-barred and lacking sufficient evidence of non-disclosure, the Tribunal provided relief to the appellants in accordance with the law.

← Previous Next →